AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1360
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1956. In these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the assessment orders for the years 2011-12 to 2015-16. 3. The show cause notices issued for all the above assessment years are identical pointing out certain defects, which are classified under two heads namely that the petitioner is entitled for adjustment of the input tax credit as done by them in the impugned assessment orders. The second issue is with regard to the claim made by the petitioner for refund of input tax credit, which they reversed by placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Everest Industries Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [reported in (2017) 100 VST 158]. 4. On a perusal of the impugned orders, it is eventually clear that the Assessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I do not find any justification in the contention of the respondents herein that form W filed beyond 180 days resulted in the rejection of the refund claim. In the light of the fact that the provisions on input-tax credit is a beneficial provision under the Act and that the provisions of the Act also contemplate filing of monthly returns and that a claim could be made therein too by giving necessary details along with the input-tax credit refund claim, the proper course herein for the first respondent would be to take up the assessment expeditiously to consider the claim and pass orders accordingly." 8. In Xomox Sanmar Limited, the very same question was considered by this Court and this Court, after taking note of the decision of the Andh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase was that adopting any other method would result in they not being able to avail of the tax deferment benefits, as the period stipulated for tax deferment came to an end by March, 2007. However, the Assessing Officer issued a notice proposing that Input-Tax Credit should be adjusted first against the output tax payable by the petitioner's (therein) manufacturing unit, and the balance alone should be utilized for adjustment against the output tax payable on their trading activity. The petitioner raised their objections to the said proposal and ultimately, the Assessing Officer did not accept the objections raised by the petitioner and confirmed the proposal. This was put to challenge before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On a reading of the above judgment, it shows that the Court considered the issue and found that when there is no specific Rule providing the manner in which the petitioner had to be assessed to tax, which is not open to the Assessing Authority to contend that the particular mode should be adopted or that the procedure adopted by the assessee is not rational and that the Assessing Authority cannot insist on the assessee adopting a particular method which would deny them the benefit of utilization of the balance available tax deferment in its entirety, and instead of paying tax. 11. In my view, the above decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court over which I am in respectful agreement would squarely apply to the facts of the present case and unl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xt issue is concerned regarding the petitioner's claim for the refund of input tax credit, which has been reversed by them for the relevant assessment years, the petitioner did not specifically raise a plea that the refund should be granted to them in the light of the decisions of this Court in Everest Industries Limited. In any event, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned proceedings with regard to the adjustment of input tax credit and for the reasons stated above, this Court is also inclined to give liberty to the petitioner to make a claim for refund with regard to reversal, which they effected by placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Everest Industries Limited. 11. The learned Government Advoca....